Boredom is the silent killer of language learning. It doesn’t shout like anxiety or storm out like frustration. It simply drifts in, unnoticed, and quietly erodes attention, effort, and ultimately, progress. Every language teacher has seen it: the glazed-over eyes during a grammar gap-fill, the heavy sigh when it’s time for another vocab test, the slouched posture during yet another round of listening comprehension.

And yet, until recently, boredom has been largely overlooked in second language acquisition research. But that is changing. In the last few years, researchers have begun to take boredom seriously as a real affective force that influences motivation, cognition, and outcomes in language learning. So what exactly do L2 learners find boring? And more importantly, what can we do to fix it?

What the Research Tells Us

Before diving into the specifics, it’s useful to frame boredom as a dynamic process rather than a fixed state. One widely discussed model in educational psychology defines boredom as the result of two core factors: control and value. When learners feel they have little control over a task (e.g., no choice, rigid format, no room for creativity) and when they perceive that task as having little personal or academic value, boredom tends to flourish (Pekrun et al., 2011). This model explains why what one student may find interesting may be perceived by another one as boring.  Another complementary model proposed in Kruk (2016) views boredom in language learning as a cyclical state influenced by novelty, task engagement, and time-on-task. According to this view, learners often experience a surge of initial interest which rapidly fades if the activity fails to introduce new stimuli, cognitive challenge, or a shift in task dynamics. Boredom here is not merely the absence of fun, but the breakdown of sustained engagement. This helps explain why even well-designed activities can eventually become disengaging if not varied or layered with increasing complexity. 

Table 1: Stages of Task-Induced Boredom in Language Learning (adapted from Kruk, 2016)

Stage	Description
Initial Engagement	Learners are curious and motivated by novelty at the start of a task.
Onset of Repetition	Without variation or increasing challenge, tasks become predictable, reducing cognitive stimulation.
Cognitive Fatigue or Drift	Learners begin to disengage mentally if no new element is introduced or if the task duration is prolonged without progression.
Affective Withdrawal	Learners feel emotionally disconnected, which reduces persistence and effort.
Complete Boredom	Task is perceived as pointless; motivation drops and behavioural signs of disengagement emerge (e.g., inattention, off-task behaviour, apathy).

This model offers a dynamic, time-sensitive view of boredom that highlights the need for timely variation and cognitive refreshment in lesson design. This dual-factor theory helps explain why two students might react differently to the same task: one may find it boring, the other may find it motivating, depending on how they interpret its usefulness and their ability to influence or succeed in it.

Recent studies have identified thirteen recurring sources of boredom in L2 classrooms: While these studies offer valuable insights, it’s important to approach them with a degree of caution. Much of the data comes from self-reported perceptions, which can be influenced by momentary feelings, prior experiences, or cultural expectations. Furthermore, boredom is a highly subjective emotion—it may be triggered by different factors depending on the learner’s age, proficiency level, learning context, or personality. What one student finds boring, another may find comforting or even stimulating. Therefore, while these findings are informative, they should not be treated as universally applicable truths but as useful prompts for reflection and adaptation in specific teaching contexts.

1. Mechanical grammar drills – In Pawlak et al. (2020), learners described traditional grammar gap-fills and rule-based manipulations as cognitively draining and emotionally empty. Because these drills often lacked meaning and relevance, they were seen as a waste of time. Learners expressed frustration when grammar was presented in decontextualised, pattern-only formats, with no clear link to real language use.
2. Overly repetitive vocabulary exercises – Pawlak et al. also found that students disliked tasks that required them to learn words through monotonous copying, L1-L2 matching, or flashcard-style quizzes. While repetition is essential, learners reported losing interest when the format never changed and the words were not reused in meaningful ways.
3. Excessive test preparation – Many learners reported that lessons centred around exam-style practice (especially multiple-choice or fill-the-gap) felt like “going through the motions.” These tasks were often disconnected from real communication, leading to demotivation—even among students who valued academic achievement.
4. Passive listening tasks – The same study showed that learners quickly disengaged during comprehension tasks that lacked a follow-up or meaningful use. Listening to recordings and answering multiple-choice questions, without interaction or reuse of content, felt lifeless and unproductive.
5. Unstructured speaking tasks – Learners were equally bored or overwhelmed by open-ended speaking tasks without clear goals, support, or context. According to Pawlak et al., many felt they were being asked to “perform” without preparation, which led to disengagement or anxiety.
6. Overuse of teacher talk – Muhonen (2004) found that students often complained about “just listening to the teacher talk.” Long monologues and minimal student interaction were associated with high boredom levels. Learners wanted to be part of the conversation, not passive spectators.
7. Lack of learner autonomy – Egbert (2003) explored the concept of “flow” in language learning and discovered that boredom increased when students had no say in what or how they learned. Opportunities for choice—even limited—were linked to greater engagement and satisfaction.
8. Low cognitive challenge – In Zawodniak & Kruk (2019), learners reported being bored when tasks were too simple or repetitive. They preferred activities that stretched them slightly (= in the zone of optimal development), asking them to think, notice patterns, or solve problems with the language they had encountered. 
9. Lack of personal relevance – Pekrun et al. (2011) found that boredom flourishes when learners see no value in a task. When classroom activities lacked purpose or connection to learners’ goals, identities, or realities, motivation dipped dramatically.
10. Artificial or inauthentic tasks – Van Lier (1996) argued that students lose interest when language use is obviously fake. Tasks like scripted dialogues, fill-the-blank exercises, or pointless information gaps were seen as tedious unless connected to real-world communication.
11. Flat emotional tone – Mercer & Dörnyei (2020) highlighted that the emotional climate of the classroom matters. If lessons lack humour, drama, or excitement, even engaging content can feel dull. Emotional neutrality—especially across multiple lessons—was a common boredom trigger.
12. Translation-based vocab tasks – MacIntyre & Gardner (1991) documented that out-of-context vocabulary translation exercises (e.g., isolated word lists or L1-L2 matching) were rated as boring and ineffective. Learners preferred tasks that embedded new words into stories, dialogues, or meaningful input.
13. Superficial digital tasks – Reinhardt & Sykes (2012) warned against confusing digital novelty with engagement. Learners were unimpressed by drag-and-drop games or quiz-like apps when they resembled old worksheets in disguise. True engagement, they argued, depends on the depth of processing and communicative value.

What We Can Do as Teachers

Cause of Boredom	Suggested Fix
Repetition without variation	Recycle language through diverse formats and modalities. Use high-frequency structures in meaning-focused contexts that evolve over time—e.g., same structures reused across listening, speaking, and writing tasks.
Lack of relevance	Connect tasks to learner identity, real-life use, or assessment purpose. Embed language in communicative frames, stories, and cultural touchpoints that matter to learners.
Too much teacher talk without interaction	Shift to routines that maximise student response time through tightly scaffolded interactive tasks. Focus on co-construction of meaning via communicative modelling and peer interaction.
Low learner autonomy	Offer choices in topic, format, or partner. Incorporate open-ended outputs within tightly controlled input and clear models that support flexible expression.
Low challenge	Gradually increase task complexity through structured input processing and supported production tasks. Include pattern spotting, reformulation, and synthesis activities.
Emotionally flat delivery	Use engaging hooks, characters, and real-world scenarios. Create expectation, surprise, and curiosity through sequenced tasks with narrative or problem-solving elements.
Inauthentic tasks	Design tasks with clear communicative purpose and real or imagined audience. Encourage meaningful language use in oral and written modes based on everyday communicative intentions.

These solutions reflect an instructional design that intentionally scaffolds challenge and engagement. By sequencing tasks that transition from input to output, recycling target structures repeatedly in different contexts, and incorporating cognitive variety and emotional resonance, teachers can eliminate many of the causes of boredom. This model aligns with approaches that favour high exposure to meaningful input, structured interaction, and repeated use of patterns over time.

Conclusion: Boredom Is a Design Problem—And One We Know How to Solve

Boredom isn’t a learner trait—it’s a classroom symptom. And fortunately, it’s one that can be designed out. The recurring sources of boredom described above—mechanical drills, test prep, monotony, irrelevance, and inauthenticity—are symptoms of a deeper issue: an overreliance on narrow, unvaried, and low-challenge activities.

Instructional models grounded in structured input, high-frequency pattern recycling, interactional routines, and carefully scaffolded output offer an effective antidote. These models embrace a ‘prime first, explain later’ philosophy (a la EPI), encouraging learners to process, notice, and reuse language before engaging with rules explicitly. They promote sustained attention and depth of processing by anchoring language in meaningful, emotionally resonant contexts.

Rather than asking learners to memorise and repeat, they are invited to engage and reformulate. Rather than isolating grammar or vocabulary, they are offered rich input where form and meaning co-occur. Rather than being passive recipients, they become active users of language from the very beginning.

In this sense, the solution to boredom is not merely entertainment—it’s principled task design. Each of the thirteen triggers can be reversed through instructional choices that prioritise engagement, interaction, recycling, and meaning. When we do this consistently, we don’t just combat boredom. We accelerate acquisition.

References

• Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 499–518.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and language learning. Language Learning, 41(1), 85–117.
• Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
• Muhonen, J. (2004). Second language demotivation: Factors that discourage pupils from learning the English language. University of Jyväskylä.
• Pawlak, M., Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2020). Investigating boredom in the foreign language classroom: A mixed-methods study. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 877–901.
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549.
• Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Digital Games and Language Learning: Theory, Development and Implementation. Bloomsbury.
• Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. Longman.
• Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2019). Towards a multifaceted view of boredom in the foreign language classroom. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 89–109.